Ineffectiveness aside, was prohibition morally right?
I kind of think it was, alcohol doesn't "contribute" anything to society and in fact actively detracts in many ways from health damage to crime to idleness.
There's the Libertarian argument, of course, that people should be allowed to put whatever they want into their bodies, but that entire point of view can be disregarded if your only concern is someone's social or nationalist contribution.
>>66208308
Libertarianism is stupid. Look at what happens when you let people eat whatever they want: they get fat as fuck. People don't have the personal responsibility these days to handle many modern vices.
I propose we offer "drinking licenses" to people capable of handling alcohol and "fast food licenses" to people who aren't fat fucks.
>>66208308
Prohibition did work -- if you use the metrics in this article.
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibition-was-a-success.html
Morally right? I'm not sure. Partaking in alcohol isn't inherently morally-wrong.
>>66208308
In a perfect world alcohol and weed would not only be illegal but unwanted, however drunks and potheads will bay otherwise.
Alcohol can be used medicinally, making it morally correct to use.
Problem is, there are degenerates who abuse it to feel good for a few hours.
To use something, anything, for right or wrong, is always in the hands of the end user.
>>66208308
Only mafia will profit from this.
>>66208308
No, it is dumb. Just as the "war on drugs" is dumb. Make drug use, sale, and possession legal. It isn't up to the government to decide what is good for us or not. If we want to use drugs, it's our body, our choice.
People have been drinking for as long as civilization stood, and will continue to do so until we all perish. Whether or not it's legal doesn't matter, we absolutely love the poison.
My view is slightly both sides. As long as you do your part contributing to society, then you should have an individual liberty to do any fucking drug you want. Either make alcohol illegal since it's objectively worse and more harmful/destructive than the rest, or legalize everything.
Booze is needed in a healthy society as a mean for people to cloud their mind and forget their problems every once in a while. Just look at the muslim world to get an idea of what a dry society looks like.
>>66208406
Fuck that fucking shit. Its "land of the free", not "pretty free" and what youre doing is punishing those who smoke, drink, whatever responsibly. Shitposting contributes less than booze does to anything but yall do it anyhow.
First, present your argument why alcohol is morally wrong.
>>66208521
>It isn't up to the government to decide what is good for us or not. If we want to use drugs, it's our body, our choice.
>>66208461
>To use something, anything, for right or wrong, is always in the hands of the end user.
I sympathize with this viewpoint but I guess I'm not looking at it as a be-all and end-all anymore. The self-motivated, self-disciplined, truly independent Rand Paul types are exceedingly rare but solipsistic enough to think most people are like them. Most people given that degree of freedom, just sink into laziness and hedonism.
The United States may have been unique in being founded by, again, an unusually large demographic of self-motivated, self-disciplined, truly independent people, but that seems to have washed away in the interceding centuries anyway.
By and large, people tend to impose their values on others, AND people tend to look for values to be imposed on them.
About as morally right as requiring celibacy from priests
No
>It doesnt work
>Drinking alcohol is part of white man's culture
>It destroys a lot companies and creates a lot of crime
>>66208308
>doesn't "contribute" anything to society
Many things dont contribute anything. Do you wanth live in society consisting of work on factory and sleep/eat not to die. Its pure communism buddy
>>66208418
you mean by getting more people to drink because it was taboo?
>>66208736
No, my idea pretty explicitly DOESN'T punish those who engage in those vices responsibly. But after you get a DUI, your drinking privileges would be revoked.
I don't see anything morally wrong with alcohol. It just causes a lot of damage when in the wrong hands, and that's probably something we can prevent.
>>66208308
answer this, burger
how could prohibition ever happen in the land of the free? banning alcohol and literally having the government go into your business and steal your fucking beer barrels.
How was this not unconstitutional?
>>66208736
you can't say "alcohol is morally wrong".
you could say "alcohol abuse is morally wrong". then you have to be able to define abuse. turns out this has been done.
that old saying..."everything in moderation", that assumes everyone has a requisite degree of self control which is born out of a moral awareness.
>>66209061
Because a majority of states and legislatures ratified it into the Constitution.
It's also the only amendment in history to have a majority of states and legislatures ratify it out of the Constitution again.
>>66208308
It's a moot question, since we have empirical knowledge that banning alcohol inflicts more damage on society than legal alcohol does.
If I could snap my fingers and everyone would magically forget how to brew, ferment, or distill... it would be good for society, but I still wouldn't do it. Alcoholic drinks comprise a major part of humankind's culinary heritage, especially for us Europeans. I'd rather deal with the social costs of alcoholism than lose all that cultural tradition.
>>66208308
>Government wants its populace to sacrifice their lives in WW1
>later decides to revoke one of the few pleasures of the common-man and ex-service men
This is why politicians are knob heads
>>66209150
you are thinking like an economist.
i like that.
>>66208418
>slight reduction in alcohol consumption
>significant increase in crime and government corruption.
>>66208308
Yes and no.
If you look at the issues that motivated prohibitionists, they ran across the spectrum from "The saloon bankrupts families of working people and is an opiate of the masses" to "Drunkenness is causing a lot of domestic violence" to "Alcohol is bad because My Bible" to "Nigs get drunk and rape white women" to "Fucking German brewing families aren't even real Americans."
The coalition supporting prohibition was wide, and very diverse, and so was the range of morality of their reasons for supporting prohibition.
And you have to bear in mind that the levels of drinking at that time were WAY higher than anything we've seen in our lifetimes. So the scale of the problems alcohol was causing is bigger than we might normally imagine.
>>66209804
you put your puritan genes in front of freedom, you should be ashamed
We never banned alcohol in europe and we're fine, wine and beer are just a cultural element of our lives
>>66208968
But that was not what happened, at least at first. Per capita alcohol consumption FELL significantly wit the advent of Prohibition.
Of course, when the weaknesses of the Volstead Act made enforcement impossible, prohibition quickly became a joke, and drinking became fashionable in a way it never had before (the transition from the Saloon to the Night Club is the clearest sign of that.)
But, before enforcement became a joke, Americans were, initially, willing to give the new law a try.
An interesting read, for those who read books, is "Last Call" by Daniel Okrent.
>>66209121
>It's also the only amendment in history to have a majority of states and legislatures ratify it out of the Constitution again.
It is also one of only two to take away a right from citizens.
>>66209804
I feel like alcohol abuse is more dangerous now than ever since everyone has cars. Cars were around during prohibition, but not with the same level of frequency.
Based self-driving cars should fix this though.
>>66208308
Oh Alkohol, oh Alkohol
Du bist mein Feind das weiß ich wohl
Doch in der Bibel steht geschrieben
Du sollst deine Feinde lieben
>>66210035
I didn't. I wasn't alive then.
And the Puritan religious impulse was far from the only one driving the prohibition movement.
>>66209150
>If I could snap my fingers and everyone would magically forget how to brew, ferment, or distill... it would be good for society
You would be wrong
>>66208308
As with everything in the world.
> "In some cases. Yes."
>>66208308
Only reason people still support alcohol is get drunk of their asses.
>>66208406
>drinking licenses
>fact food licenses
Literally communism.
>>66208308
>ban alcohol
>birth rates plummet even more
>that entire point of view can be disregarded if your only concern is someone's social or nationalist contribution
>someone's social or nationalist contribution
I am not owned by the state. I am not owned by anyone or any group no matter how much they vote on it.
Slavery is illegal.
The peaceful use of any substance that does not harm others should always be legal. If a rape or murder happens while high then it is the rape or murder which should be the only crime, not the substance abuse. It is true a substance abuser is more likely to recommit a crime that ended up hurting another. That fact should be addressed in the sentencing phase of that violent crime.
Your point is invalid.
People should be able to do whatever they want to their bodies since they are the only ones who own themselves.
>>66211564
It's an admirable sentiment but it treats the US Constitution as some kind of magic document whose programming is executed by citizens instead of guidelines that are regularly disregarded or ignored by almost everyone.
In the same way that "enlightened selfishness" is all well and good until your atomized society is conquered and eaten by a more socially restrictive one.
Like it or not, people need some method to forget their problems. Every culture has some, even mudslimes have shisha and strong coffee and kat or whatever it's called.
Ban alcohol and you get huge black market, like Russia in early nineties, you could only get some services and products in exchange for pure ethanol, it literally became a medium of exchange, that's how badly people need an outlet.
If you somehow ban it AND stamp out the black market, people will just flood to other drugs including fanatical religious cults. Anything to forget the dismal hopeless world we live in for a few hours.
Alcohol has an added bonus of being a long term part of the culture, we have cultural norms for consumption, to punish irresponsible drinkers, to tell at a glance if a person has been partaking etc. Imagine re-learning all this shit again for opium or kat or some man made chemical like meth... just stick to booze mong.
>>66209336
How so?
Since pretty much only drink water anyway, it wouldn't affect me personally either way.
In a perfect world, there's probably no need for alcohol. I acknowledge it as a social lubricant - but isn't the root problem that we think we need one in the first place? With the right upbringing and social circumstances there's no legitimate need for alcohol left and with the right emotional states there's no demand for alcohol (people who are happy in their lives have little desire for escapism).
On the other side, there's a huge well-documented social cost to alcohol use and abuse. It frequently tops the charts in terms of harmfulness, even more than smoking and heroine. It seems to me that which drugs are legal (ethanol, nicotine, caffeine) and which are illegal (opiates, coca, thc, amphetamines) is entirely historically contingent. At the time the laws were made, it was socially acceptable and even fashionable to drink, smoke and have coffee.
So far I see a pretty convincing argument to ban alcohol.
But the whole impact on liberties doesn't sit well with me. I could get over that (after all, if I think heroine should be banned, I can't say alcohol shouldn't with a straight face). But looking at the broader picture - there has never been one single civilization in human history that didn't engage in ritualized intoxication. From all parts of the world, from plants, animals, naturally occuring or chemically manufactured stuff - we've always looked for and heavily used intoxicants. Maybe it's our nature? It's still not for me, but I could see myself arguing for a human right to intoxication. Maybe getting shitfaced is a basic need for many people and while I don't enjoy inebriation, I do see the appeal of hedonism.
My verdict / general rule for all drugs: Don't ban it, but heavily educate people on safe use. It's fine as long as it's a choice. People who become dependent should be treated forcibly and banned from further use.
>>66211159
You would get them by default when you turn 18, and have them removed when you fuck up.
>>66208308
As always the libertarian view is the best
